Info-Tech Research Group1 Vendor Landscape: Higher Education ERP The old dogs are (finally) producing some new tricks.

Info-Tech Research Group2 Higher education ERP is all about linking constituent (e.g. faculty, staff, and students) management with financial management. Introduction Medium-sized universities and colleges that need a single solution for their HR, financial, and student management. Their ERP use case may include: Institutions that want to implement self-service and mobile solutions for constituents. Institutions that need a comprehensive financial solution that integrates fundraising and grants management. Institutions with complex facilities and assets that need a management solution. Institutions that want to integrate their Learning Management System with their ERP. This Research Is Designed For:This Research Will Help You: Understand what’s new in the higher education ERP market. Evaluate higher education ERP vendors and products for your enterprise needs. Determine which products are most appropriate for particular use cases and scenarios.

Info-Tech Research Group3 Market Overview Universities struggle with consolidated management of all of their constituents: students, alumni, donors, and faculty. Early ERP solutions weren’t appropriate for education. ERP traditionally dealt with materials while education is about people. PeopleSoft emerged to address that difference. Data management specialists, such as Datatel and Jenzabar, brought database solutions to manage student information. Eventually these became add-on modules for ERP solutions. The result of this evolution has lead to two types of higher education ERPs: student-focused and facilities- focused. IT managers need to carefully assess which solution is most appropriate for their needs. The higher education specific market is still in flux. Continued acquisitions and re-platforming are shaking up the market. This has lead to difficulties in directly comparing the ERP offerings. No one vendor provides a comprehensive solution that allows management of all constituent and financial activities. Each vendor is inherently a specialist. The solutions offered as a whole are incomplete. A key for customers is deciding which features they are willing to purchase as add-ons to the core ERP product. These add-ons complicate both the selection cycle and budgets. The large gaps remain in faculty management, grants management, and constituent communication. The complex relationships between resources (faculty and students) and budgeting has led vendors to focus on data integration. How it got hereWhere it’s going As the market evolves, capabilities that were once cutting edge become default, and new functionality becomes differentiating. Integrated SIS and e-learning integration has become a Table Stakes capability and should not be used to differentiate solutions. Instead focus on faculty-specific modules and the extent of the core modules to get the best fit for your requirements.

Info-Tech Research Group4 Higher Ed ERP Vendor Landscape selection / knock-out criteria: Market share, mind share, and market consolidation Campus Management offers a range software solutions built on Microsoft technology. It is dedicated to the education industry. Datatel is a pioneer of higher education solutions. It continues to focus on supporting new teaching and learning methods. Jenzabar is a relatively new player to higher education ERP. Jenzabar offers flexible ERP solutions on three different technology platforms. Oracle PeopleSoft Campus Solutions is the marketplace leader and the founder of this specific segment of ERP market. SunGard Higher Education was built on open source. Its modular design accommodates a range of institution sizes. UNIT4 Business Software is a new player to higher education ERP. Agresso Education provides solutions with holistic planning and choices in mind. Included in the Vendor Landscape: This market is maturing at an uneven pace, with vendors still attempting to understand the needs of different segments of the market. The landscape is dominated by PeopleSoft for large institutions. Many viable education-specific competitors exist at all levels. For this Vendor Landscape, Info-Tech focused on those vendors that have a strong market presence and/or reputational presence among small to mid-sized enterprises.

Info-Tech Research Group5 Higher Education ERP Criteria & Weighting Factors Features Usability Architecture Product Vendor Vendor Evaluation Vendor is committed to the space and has a future product and portfolio roadmap. Strategy Vendor offers global coverage and is able to sell and provide post-sales support. Reach Vendor is profitable, knowledgeable, and will be around for the long-term. Viability Vendor channel strategy is appropriate and the channels themselves are strong. Channel Product Evaluation The solution’s dashboard and reporting tools are intuitive and easy to use. Usability The delivery method of the solution aligns with what is expected within the space. Architecture The solution provides basic and advanced feature/functionality. Features Viability Strategy ReachChannel

Info-Tech Research Group6 Table Stakes represent the minimum standard; without these a product doesn’t even get reviewed If Table Stakes are all you need from your ERP solution, the only true differentiator for the organization is which relationship/resource, financial or students, is most important. Otherwise, dig deeper to find the best price to value for your needs. The products assessed in this Vendor Landscape TM meet, at the very least, the requirements outlined as Table Stakes. Many of the vendors go above and beyond the outlined Table Stakes, some even do so in multiple categories. This section aims to highlight the products capabilities in excess of the criteria listed here. The Table StakesWhat Does This Mean? FeatureDescription Student Information System Online course calendar and student self- service portal. Human Resource Controls Basic HR tools. All vendors in this VL have segmentation and document attaching capabilities for tracking employees. E-Learning IntegrationThe ability to attach and integrate at least one e-learning system into the SIS. Business SuiteBasic financial tracking and monitoring. All vendors had some level of analytics. Constituent Relationship Management Basic CRM function including information tracking specifically related to financial relationships.

Info-Tech Research Group7 Advanced Features are the market differentiators that make or break a product (1 of 2) Advanced Features Info-Tech scored each vendor’s features offering as a summation of their individual scores across the listed advanced features. Vendors were given one point for each feature the product inherently provided. Some categories were scored on a more granular scale with vendors receiving half points (see appendix for Partial functionality criteria). Modules and features that required additional purchase were given minimal credit. Scoring Methodology FeatureWhat We Looked For E-LearningFull point given for an integrated e-learning solution that is linked visible to the CRM and financial users for long-term planning. Minimal points given for a dedicated linkage to a separate learning management solution. Self-ServiceSpecific self-service portal for all users: employees (faculty, administrators, staff) and students (prospective, current, alumni). Mobility and Communications A mobile platform that allows all users role-based access. Minimal points were given for student self-service apps, campus-wide communications, or mobile-optimized web portals. Separate HR and SIS A separation of Human Resources and student databases to ease maintenance and search of databases. Minimal points were given for expanded SIS search options such as keyword search. Performance Analytics A flexible analytics platform that can be used to compare and align student information with financial planning. Full points given for integrated platforms that have a UI that casual users can customize based on their role.

Info-Tech Research Group8 Advanced Features are the market differentiators that make or break a product (2 0f 2) Advanced Features Info-Tech scored each vendor’s features offering as a summation of their individual scores across the listed advanced features. Vendors were given one point for each feature the product inherently provided. Some categories were scored on a more granular scale with vendors receiving half points (see appendix for Partial functionality criteria). Modules and features that required additional purchase where given minimal credit. Scoring Methodology FeatureWhat We Looked For Administrative Solutions Specific module for integration of Registrar and student services to monitor and evaluate the student population. Full points were awarded for solutions that provide automation of simple advancement towards degree and course requirements. Advanced CRM Education specific pre-customized with core constituents based on faculty type, current students, prospective students, donors, and alumni. This includes integration of financial planning and donor/alumni giving for long-term planning. Faculty Development Ability to track and support the professional development of faculty members. Full points for a dedicated module. Grant Management Ability to track and implement controls based on grantor requirements. FundraisingAbility to track who is donating and prospecting for additional money from the alumni and parents through integration of student databases and CRMs. Facilities/Asset Management Integrated approach to allow financial planning, student admissions, and supply chain decisions to be made at a high level. Supply ChainAbility to manage maintenance, repair, and operation functions for infrastructure (e.g. buildings, laboratories, etc.) in the context of shifting budgets; a common issue for higher education institutes.

Info-Tech Research Group9 Appendix Vendor Evaluation Methodology Vendor Evaluation Methodology – Partial Scoring Criteria for ERP

Info-Tech Research Group10 Vendor Evaluation Methodology Info-Tech Research Group’s Vendor Landscape market evaluations are a part of a larger program of vendor evaluations which includes Solution Sets that provide both Vendor Landscapes and broader Selection Advice. From the domain experience of our analysts, as well as through consultation with our clients, a vendor/product shortlist is established. Product briefings are requested from each of these vendors, asking for information on the company, products, technology, customers, partners, sales models, and pricing. Our analysts then score each vendor and product across a variety of categories, on a scale of 0-10 points. The raw scores for each vendor are then normalized to the other vendors’ scores to provide a sufficient degree of separation for a meaningful comparison. These scores are then weighted according to weighting factors that our analysts believe represent the weight that an average client should apply to each criteria. The weighted scores are then averaged for each of two high level categories: vendor score and product score. A plot of these two resulting scores is generated to place vendors in one of four categories: Champion, Innovator, Market Pillar, and Emerging Player. For a more granular category by category comparison, analysts convert the individual scores (absolute, non-normalized) for each vendor/product in each evaluated category to a scale of zero to four whereby exceptional performance receives a score of four, and poor performance receives a score of zero. These scores are represented with “Harvey Balls,” ranging from an open circle for a score of zero, to a filled in circle for a score of four. Harvey Ball scores are indicative of absolute performance by category, but are not an exact correlation to overall performance. Individual scorecards are then sent to the vendors for factual review, and to ensure no information is under embargo. We will make corrections where factual errors exist (e.g. pricing, features, technical specifications). We will consider suggestions concerning benefits, functional quality, value, etc; however, these suggestions must be validated by feedback from our customers. We do not accept changes that are not corroborated by actual client experience, or wording changes that are purely part of a vendor’s market messaging or positioning. Any resulting changes to final scores are then made as needed, before publishing the results to Info-Tech clients. Vendor Landscapes are refreshed every 12 to 24 months, depending upon the dynamics of each individual market.

Info-Tech Research Group11 Vendor Evaluation Methodology-Partial scoring criteria for ERP Info-Tech Research Group’s Vendor Landscape market evaluations are a part of a larger program of vendor evaluations which includes Solution Sets that provide both Vendor Landscapes and broader Selection Advice. From the domain experience of our analysts, as well as through consultation with our clients, a vendor/product shortlist is established. Product briefings are requested from each of these vendors, asking for information on the company, products, technology, customers, partners, sales models and pricing. Our analysts then score each vendor and product across a variety of categories, on a scale of 0-10 points. The raw scores for each vendor are then normalized to the other vendors’ scores to provide a sufficient degree of separation for a meaningful comparison. These scores are then weighted according to weighting factors that our analysts believe represent the weight that an average client should apply to each criteria. The weighted scores are then averaged for each of two high level categories: vendor score and product score. A plot of these two resulting scores is generated to place vendors in one of four categories: Champion, Innovator, Market Pillar, and Emerging Player. For ERP, a more granular approach was required to account for differences in the nature of the advanced features from each vendor. Analysts then scored each advanced feature from zero to one. A score of one indicates that the feature fully met the scoring criteria as defined in the advanced feature slide, a score of 0.2 was awarded for advanced features that are minimal, third party add-ons, or features that require upgrade. Features that had some, but not all, of the criteria, or features that are add-on modules, and can be purchased alone, were given a score of 0.5. Advanced features that required further customization to meet the criteria, or very closely meet the criteria with the exception of one component, were given a score of 0.75.

Info-Tech Research Group12 Info-Tech Research Group Helps IT Professionals To: Sign up for free trial membership to get practical solutions for your IT challenges Quickly get up to speed with new technologies Make the right technology purchasing decisions – fast Deliver critical IT projects, on time and within budget Manage business expectations Justify IT spending and prove the value of IT Train IT staff and effectively manage an IT department “Info-Tech helps me to be proactive instead of reactive – a cardinal rule in a stable and leading edge IT environment. - ARCS Commercial Mortgage Co., LP Toll Free: